On Thu, 24 Apr 2003 18:08:38 GMT, "nappy" <joseft@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>"Neuman - Ruether" <d_ruether@hotmail.com> wrote in message

>news:3ea7e853.5588569@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu...

>> On Wed, 23 Apr 2003 20:56:50 -0700, "Mike Rehmus"

>> <mike@no-spam-byvideo.com> wrote:

>> >The suggested 1 watt won't do much to create sound. Acoustic Suspension

>> >speakers required a lot of power to create their sound. I'd guess you

>won't

>> >be happy with less than 60-100 watts or so.

>> >

>> >I use 60 watts on a set of bass-reflex near-field monitors and it is more

>> >than adequate. But Acoustic Suspension speakers are about 10% efficient

>> >IIRC.

>> Actually, 1 watt goes much further than most believe,

>> assuming it is provided by a stable power amp...;-)

>whew.. sure 1 watt is fine.. ok.. until the first transient.

Restoring the "conveniently-excised-by-'nappy'" remains

of my post does kinda cover this...:

"My TV of 10 years ago, with 1 watt/channel, drives

a "2 cubic foot" old pair of Genesis 2-way

acoustic-suspension speaker nicely, to satisfying

levels with DVD movies, with plenty of clean bass

(some top and bottom end EQ applied...), with no

signs of clipping. Most people (EXCLUDING teen-age

boys!) listen to music at levels going up to

satisfying, realistic acoustic-music levels without

ever approaching 1 watt power use (regardless of

what the meters say on the amps), even with inefficient

speakers. 1 watt will easily produce about 85db levels

in most rooms, with most speakers - and for most

people, this is loud. "Earbashing" power requirements

are different, though, and can easily require peak

power in the hundreds of watts, even with efficient

speakers - but this is different from the requirements

for near-field monitoring of video tracks, where

1 watt/channel is generally quite sufficient. If

you do not believe me, try listening at a good

"average" monitoring level in your current

monitoring set-up, and measure the voltage across

the speaker terminals on peaks. You may be

surprised how little power is being used...;-)"

BTW, you do have a penchant for deceptive editing of

posts when quoting them, permitting you to respond

with answers that are obviously inappropriate or

already answered in the deleted part of the post

"quoted" when the original post is restored to its

original form. Remember: whatever you write remains

archieved for many years, for all to see, as does

the original material that you dishonestly misquoted...